16 replies to this topic

[Wade]

If you haven't seen it yet, there's an infomercial on TV here in the States for a new technology that lets you -- supposedly -- watch regular television, broadcast and cable, in 3-D. It's call Z3D, or something like that. One of the hosts is some nerdy uber-geek, and his job is to explain the system to the older, less tech-savvy person (presumably, the audience), in order to sell more sets.

And who is the other "star" of this infomercial?

George Lazenby. In a tux and everything.

It would only have been marginally worse if he had had to shout out, "NOW how much would you pay? But wait, there's more ..."

[NORK]

I never saw this. Do you know how can I see it?

[Tarl_Cabot]

He's gotta pay the bills...

[Qwerty]

Hmmm, I have yet to see this. Wonder what George looks like, (I saw his picture in the TV Guide of Nov 2002 promoting DAD), but I wonder if's he look's different.

[Wade]

Originally posted by Qwerty
Hmmm, I have yet to see this. Wonder what George looks like, (I saw his picture in the TV Guide of Nov 2002 promoting DAD), but I wonder if's he look's different.

He's looking as old as Sean and Roger are.

You know something I noticed recently? Since Sean and Roger are almost the same age, it wasn't until Timothy Dalton showed his face in 1987 that the series broke timeline logic and shifted to a younger Bond. Until then, all was well.

I like having a contemporary Bond and all, but still, it's kinda weird. Suddenly, in the mid '80s, Bond loses 30 years. And his sense of humor.

But, I kid ...

[Jaelle]

I saw this informercial, it's kinda cute.

I really have to challenge the title of this thread. It's a common attitude I see among the general public about not-so-successful actors -- this sort of condescending pity of "how sad, this is what he's reduced to."

If your only comparisons are with the tiny number of highly successful actors like Hanks or Connery or Gibson or Crowe, then 99% of all actors in the world apparently deserve this pity.

I come at this from the perspective of a drama and English teacher who knows a lot of stage actors, a few of whom have gone on to do commercials, some TV and a few indie films. One of my former students is currently in the hit Broadway show The Producers, and another just got a job in an indie film with Willem Dafoe.

About 90% of all members of SAG and AFTRA earn less than $5,000 a year from acting. Most actors are out of work most of their lives, often doing other jobs to supplement work. Among actors themselves, the actor who's always able to earn a living acting -- no matter what they do -- is considered successful. This is why actors like Sam Jackson and Tim Dalton have such enviable careers -- they've never, ever had to do anything else but act and have gotten paid extremely well doing it.

Most of these working professionals haven't done many (if any) big-name projects, usually they're busy doing commercials, small indie films and TV work. But they're busy, they make good money, they get to travel and work with well-known people in the industry, they don't need to earn money doing anything else.

George Lazenby is not really someone to pity -- except insofar that one wishes he'd had more success in his profession. But that infomercial is not something for him to be ashamed of. It's good, decent work. Do you know how many actors would kill to be in his place? What's to pity?

Infomercials pay extremely well. Lazenby's getting paid very well, he gets to travel for free, he gets his expenses paid, he gets to do scenes with pretty young women, he gets exposure, he meets and befriends famous people, and he's world famous for one movie. And he still gets residual payments from that one movie. He doesn't have to sit behind a desk from 9:00 - 5:00. He has a very nice home in southern California, a home a lot of Bond fans would love to own themselves.

Sure I'd love for him to have had more professional success. But whenever I hear or read someone express pity or contempt for an actor who was once famous and then left the spotlight (like Fran Drescher who's now doing a highly successful set of TV commercials), I automatically think: "Oh like YOU have a better life? What's your job? Working behind a grocery counter?"

For an actor, *to work* is the goal. ANY job will do. As long as they can work and earn money in their profession. Acting is a profession where an extremely small group of people have any amount of success. A-list actors are an even tinier group. And more and more, there is less and less work. So that you have a lot of TV actors now doing animated voices on TV cartoons -- that never happened until the 90s. The introduction of A-list actors doing the voices of animated films destroyed an entire niche within the acting profession -- putting more good actors out of work. If you've seen the famous "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld, you remember that wonderful actor who played him. He's a fine stage and character actor who lives in Queens and has a family of 3 kids. I know him, I've seen him perform, he's a fantastic talent and he's struggling for work. He'll do anything, including voiceovers for the NYC taxi service.

And the industry is famous for ignoring real, genuine talent when it doesn't know what to do with it because certain actors are so explosive and difficult to pin down or label. Hollywood loves labels and when it sees an actor that it can't label, the industry is completely baffled as to how to cast him or her. Exceptional actors like Stephen McHattie (often seen on TV) is a prime example of a guy bursting with talent, the guy is known within SAG circles as "frightening in his talent" (to quote a former SAG president) but who's always asked to do villains and told to reign in his natural talent so he doesn't upstage the lead. This goes on all the time in movies -- often there'll be a wonderful character actor in the same scene as the lead, and he's usually *better* than the lead actor. (For good examples of this, see movies starring Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Steven Segal and other action actors). But he's been told to make himself less visible, less noticeable in his performance so the lead actor can shine.

One poster on this board (Chandler I think) frequently derides the Swedish group a-ha from the 80s because they're no longer famous, they've dropped out of the spotlight. Well, let's see, they had several hit records, made a lot of money, traveled around the world, worked with famous people like John Barry, and (from what I know of them now) are still living off of their music. That's hardly something to laugh at. They had their great moment of celebrity and are now living comfortably from it. This is something to be contemptuous of?

Me, I'd rather be doing a lot of dum infomercials than grinding away 9:00 - 5:00 Mon-Fri at a desk in some law firm or real estate agency. Sorry to offend anyone if I have, it wasn't my intention. But Lazenby has quite a nice little life for himself, just because of one good movie that he did many years ago. He's remembered by a lot of fans, liked by a lot of them, and he will forever be known as part of the world's longest-running, most successful film series. And he's still profiting from it. Can you say the same?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Wade

If you haven't seen it yet, there's an infomercial on TV here in the States for a new technology that lets you -- supposedly -- watch regular television, broadcast and cable, in 3-D. It's call Z3D, or something like that. One of the hosts is some nerdy uber-geek, and his job is to explain the system to the older, less tech-savvy person (presumably, the audience), in order to sell more sets.

And who is the other "star" of this infomercial?

George Lazenby. In a tux and everything.

It would only have been marginally worse if he had had to shout out, "NOW how much would you pay? But wait, there's more ..."

Phew. I saw a thread with the title "It's so sad ...", noticed it was in the Lazenby forum, and jumped to the conclusion that the old boy had shuffled off.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

I saw this informercial, it's kinda cute.

I really have to challenge the title of this thread. It's a common attitude I see among the general public about not-so-successful actors -- this sort of condescending pity of "how sad, this is what he's reduced to."

If your only comparisons are with the tiny number of highly successful actors like Hanks or Connery or Gibson or Crowe, then 99% of all actors in the world apparently deserve this pity.

I come at this from the perspective of a drama and English teacher who knows a lot of stage actors, a few of whom have gone on to do commercials, some TV and a few indie films. One of my former students is currently in the hit Broadway show The Producers, and another just got a job in an indie film with Willem Dafoe.

About 90% of all members of SAG and AFTRA earn less than $5,000 a year from acting. Most actors are out of work most of their lives, often doing other jobs to supplement work. Among actors themselves, the actor who's always able to earn a living acting -- no matter what they do -- is considered successful. This is why actors like Sam Jackson and Tim Dalton have such enviable careers -- they've never, ever had to do anything else but act and have gotten paid extremely well doing it.

Most of these working professionals haven't done many (if any) big-name projects, usually they're busy doing commercials, small indie films and TV work. But they're busy, they make good money, they get to travel and work with well-known people in the industry, they don't need to earn money doing anything else.

George Lazenby is not really someone to pity -- except insofar that one wishes he'd had more success in his profession. But that infomercial is not something for him to be ashamed of. It's good, decent work. Do you know how many actors would kill to be in his place? What's to pity?

Infomercials pay extremely well. Lazenby's getting paid very well, he gets to travel for free, he gets his expenses paid, he gets to do scenes with pretty young women, he gets exposure, he meets and befriends famous people, and he's world famous for one movie. And he still gets residual payments from that one movie. He doesn't have to sit behind a desk from 9:00 - 5:00. He has a very nice home in southern California, a home a lot of Bond fans would love to own themselves.

Sure I'd love for him to have had more professional success. But whenever I hear or read someone express pity or contempt for an actor who was once famous and then left the spotlight (like Fran Drescher who's now doing a highly successful set of TV commercials), I automatically think: "Oh like YOU have a better life? What's your job? Working behind a grocery counter?"

For an actor, *to work* is the goal. ANY job will do. As long as they can work and earn money in their profession. Acting is a profession where an extremely small group of people have any amount of success. A-list actors are an even tinier group. And more and more, there is less and less work. So that you have a lot of TV actors now doing animated voices on TV cartoons -- that never happened until the 90s. The introduction of A-list actors doing the voices of animated films destroyed an entire niche within the acting profession -- putting more good actors out of work. If you've seen the famous "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld, you remember that wonderful actor who played him. He's a fine stage and character actor who lives in Queens and has a family of 3 kids. I know him, I've seen him perform, he's a fantastic talent and he's struggling for work. He'll do anything, including voiceovers for the NYC taxi service.

And the industry is famous for ignoring real, genuine talent when it doesn't know what to do with it because certain actors are so explosive and difficult to pin down or label. Hollywood loves labels and when it sees an actor that it can't label, the industry is completely baffled as to how to cast him or her. Exceptional actors like Stephen McHattie (often seen on TV) is a prime example of a guy bursting with talent, the guy is known within SAG circles as "frightening in his talent" (to quote a former SAG president) but who's always asked to do villains and told to reign in his natural talent so he doesn't upstage the lead. This goes on all the time in movies -- often there'll be a wonderful character actor in the same scene as the lead, and he's usually *better* than the lead actor. (For good examples of this, see movies starring Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Steven Segal and other action actors). But he's been told to make himself less visible, less noticeable in his performance so the lead actor can shine.

One poster on this board (Chandler I think) frequently derides the Swedish group a-ha from the 80s because they're no longer famous, they've dropped out of the spotlight. Well, let's see, they had several hit records, made a lot of money, traveled around the world, worked with famous people like John Barry, and (from what I know of them now) are still living off of their music. That's hardly something to laugh at. They had their great moment of celebrity and are now living comfortably from it. This is something to be contemptuous of?

Me, I'd rather be doing a lot of dum infomercials than grinding away 9:00 - 5:00 Mon-Fri at a desk in some law firm or real estate agency. Sorry to offend anyone if I have, it wasn't my intention. But Lazenby has quite a nice little life for himself, just because of one good movie that he did many years ago. He's remembered by a lot of fans, liked by a lot of them, and he will forever be known as part of the world's longest-running, most successful film series. And he's still profiting from it. Can you say the same?

Superb post.

[Dunph]

Hear Hear Jaelle.

I was about post something similar, but it wouldn't have turned out quite so erudite.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i guess you do what you gotta do to make a living

[doublenoughtspy]

Wade,

George Lazenby started in advertising. Now he is back.

Sean Connery is currently being seen on Greek TV, hawking booze. How sad. http://www.ianflemin...ent/000124.html

Roger Moore is currently being seen on British TV, promoting a supermarket. How sad. http://www.ianflemin...res/000121.html

Timothy Dalton was seen on Japanese TV, selling Lark cigarettes. How sad. http://www.japander....nder/dalton.htm

Pierce Brosnan was seen on Japanese TV selling cosmetics, and in the US selling sugar water (Diet Coke), and UK TV for Visa and everything else. How sad. http://www.japander....der/brosnan.htm

So could you please tell me how Lazenby is so different from the others?

[Wade]

Jaelle, I agree with you completely, and the rest of you. Lazenby's certainly doing better than I.

What I was trying to say was, it's a lot more of a comedown for Lazenby, who was once James Bond, to be doing an infomercial where it's clear that ALL he is doing is cashing in on his former status than it is for Connery or Moore to be hired to do a 30-second advert. THEY'RE being hired for who they ARE. Lazenby, while I love him, was hired for who he WAS.

And while his life is, I readily and gleefully admit, much more exciting and interesting than mine is, I'm sure he would much rather be doing films or stage or TV work. I know a few actors, and while they love to pay the rent, there is still a tiny little part of them that withers every time they have to do work at a car show or in an industrial film. I would love for George to be doing so much more, and he's not doing it.

Maybe this will lead to something for him.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Wade
Jaelle, I agree with you completely, and the rest of you. Lazenby's certainly doing better than I.
What I was trying to say was, it's a lot more of a comedown for Lazenby, who was once James Bond, to be doing an infomercial where it's clear that ALL he is doing is cashing in on his former status than it is for Connery or Moore to be hired to do a 30-second advert. THEY'RE being hired for who they ARE. Lazenby, while I love him, was hired for who he WAS.
And while his life is, I readily and gleefully admit, much more exciting and interesting than mine is, I'm sure he would much rather be doing films or stage or TV work. I know a few actors, and while they love to pay the rent, there is still a tiny little part of them that withers every time they have to do work at a car show or in an industrial film. I would love for George to be doing so much more, and he's not doing it.
Maybe this will lead to something for him.

Wade, thanks very much for explaining your intent. I agree entirely with your sentiments. And you're right, depending on the actor and his circumstances, when he has to do something like getting dressed up in some costume and stand in front of, say, a theater or the Paramount Plaza building at Times Square, "pride" is not something he feels. It's a job. But he does get well paid. You'd be surprised how well paid some of those ridiculous street costume jobs are. And they often get great perks like free entry to a special event where they can meet VIPs, free meals and transportation, and so on.

For that informercial that Lazenby did, for example, a total unknown actor with little experience gets paid approx. $200-300 an hour, plus expenses. Lazenby can at the very least charge double that, if not more, depending on the employer (I suspect he gets paid much more than that). One of my former students did informercials for 3 years. She got paid $500-600 an hour, and she was very young, with only a short resume. She managed to pay off her entire college education in a very short time and put a substantial downpayment on an apt. in Manhattan.

My post was meant only to counter the easy condescension some people feel to guys like Lazenby. I'm hardly innocent in this, we all indulge in this kind of bashing. I was just trying to bring a little perspective into this. I see that you're just wishing Lazenby well, and not coming from an attitude of condescension.

Anyway, Lazenby seemed to be having fun in that informercial. As for him wanting to do stage, I don't think so. If an actor wants to do stage work, he can find it---unless of course he doesn't want to bother with regional or little theater. LA has some great theaters like the Matrix, which has a company made up of many familiar TV and film actors (mostly TV), a lot of them character actors---faces that everyone on this board would recognize immediately. Patrick Stewart (who I just saw on Broadway with Kyle Maclachlan) does not only Broadway and the West End, he does regional theater in places like D.C. and Minneapolis. It's Lazenby's choice not to pursue the stage.

I am more judgmental of Dalton than I am of Lazenby. Dalton chose to turn his back on stage for years and turned down a lot of good film offers. That was his choice of course, he can do whatever he wants with his career. But unlike Lazenby he had a lot more credibility, a track record and lot of respect among his peers. He had more room for better choices and didn't capitalize on it. Of course he did go into a period of burn-out after working like a madman for almost 30 years doing multiple projects every year. I just wish he hadn't indulged that burn-out for so long -- it's an entirely selfish judgment on my part, I do recognize that.

Brosnan by contrast is much smarter about his career, he's a much better decision-maker.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yes, it's ok to earn a living George. It's not admirable when a rich and succesfful actor makes a business choice over an artistic one. I always respected Alec Baldwin's decision to do 'Street car name desire' on broadway over 'Patriot Games'.It was an elitist thing to do however. His career might have gone better if he did the Jack Ryan sequel but he did what he wanted to do and had the means to make that choice. Good for him but as Jaelle says, not every actor has that luxury.

[David Somerset]

As far as I'm concerned, Lazenby still IS not WAS !!

[CommanderBond]

I still havent seen it yet but he has to do something to keep his " Career" alive or did he have one??

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007
Hear Hear Jaelle.

I was about post something similar, but it wouldn't have turned out quite so erudite.

Touche'. Could you expect anything less from so scholarly a lady?